• Users Online: 49
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Ahead of Print

A comparison of direct laryngoscopy versus videolaryngoscopy using aerosol box for intubation in emergency surgeries during Covid-19 pandemic: A pilot study

1 Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Command Hospital (Southern Command), Pune, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Armed College of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Deepak Dwivedi,
Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Command Hospital (Southern Command), Pune - 411 040, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jmms.jmms_100_20

Background and Aims: This study was planned to compare intubating conditions with aerosol box, while attempting intubation with either direct laryngoscope (DL) using Macintosh blade or McGrath MAC™, videolaryngoscope (VL). Methodology: Sixty adult patients coming for the emergency surgeries during COVID-19 pandemic were divided equally by consecutive sampling into either Group 1 (DL) or Group 2 (VL). General anesthesia was administered with aerosol box covering the head and trunk of the patient. The laryngoscopy was attempted based on the group allocation with either VL or DL through aerosol box. Following observations were noted, total intubation time, number of attempts, Cormack–Lehane (CL) view, intubation difficulty scale (IDS), use of airway adjuncts, and external laryngeal maneuver. Results: Mean (standard deviation) time taken to intubate was 25.36 (6.22) sec in DL group and 21.9 (5.56) sec in VL group. Median IDS scoring was 1 in DL group and 0 in VL group indicating toward ease of intubation with the videolaryngoscope. Improved glottic view (CL Grade 1) was attained commonly with VL group and higher CL grades (2b) were common with DL group (23.3%). No intubation aids were required in VL group although 30% in DL required bougie for the intubation. External laryngeal maneuver was applied in 40% subjects undergoing DL with no maneuvers needed in VL group. First pass success of intubation was comparable in both the groups. Conclusion: Intubating conditions are favorable with VL when aerosol box is included which requires acquisition of the skills depending on its availability. However, the intubation should be attempted with the technique the clinician has the expertise during this pandemic.

Print this article
  Search Pubmed for
    -  Dwivedi D
    -  Bhatia P
    -  Aggarwal M
    -  Sen S
    -  Hooda B
    -  Dudeja P
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded3    

Recommend this journal